A former member of the police Special Mobile Unit said today he could not remember whether the members of the unit were chosen because of their political affiliation.
Mario Farrugia was replying to questions while testifying in proceedings which he filed against the former editor of In-Nazzjon, Nathaniel Attard, over an allegedly defamatory article which singled him out for his involvement in the unit, notoriously linked to the episodes of political violence before the 1987 general election.
Mr Farrugia testified that he had joined the SMU after having submitted a letter of application and after having successfully undergone a physical and medical examination. Replying to a question regarding the selection process of members of this special unit, the witness stated that he did not recall whether applicants were admitted on the basis of their political affiliation. "How should I remember, it's been over 30 years ago," the witness remarked.
He insisted that he had joined the squad because he possessed "the necessary capabilities."
Recalling the violent clashes between the SMU and Nationalist Party supporters after a mass meeting in Rabat, Mr Farrugia explained that on that fateful day he was assigned chauffeur duties with the unit's vehicle parked outside the Rabat police station and could not for any reason leave the vehicle unattended. Consequently, he did not witness the violent incidents.
Asked whether as a member of the SMU he used to carry weapons, Mr Farrugia explained that his duties involved training, assisting at roadblocks and patrols. During the Rabat incident he was not armed because he was performing chauffeur duties.
Questioned directly about his political affiliation and whether he could confirm that he was one of the leading supporters of the Labour Party, Mr Farrugia categorically denied this. "I did not even have a party membership card," he retorted.
Pressed further about the involvement, if any, of the SMU in political activities organized by the Labour Party and whether he was known to be particularly "rough and harsh " where Nationalist supporters were involved, Mr Farrugia emphasized that he always did his duty and in fact he was never called to testify about his past actions.
He said that shortly after the 1987 election, he resigned from the police corps so as to take up a better paid job with a local hotel. In May 2014 he returned to the police force and joined the Rapid Intervention Unit.
Lawyer Edward Gatt appearing for the plaintiff, whilst acknowledging the terrible episodes which took place in the 80's, declared that the author of the allegedly libellous article had ridden "roughshod" by singling out his client and by relying on a wrong source without verifying the facts. The case, he said, was based on the fact that the article wrongly associated his client with the violent element within the SMU.
Lawyer Peter Fenech, on behalf of the editor, argued that the article in question was based on true facts which had not been denied by the plaintiff. The only objection had been made with respect to a statement that was merely an opinion and that could not possibly amount to libel.
The case was put off for judgment.